Talk:Grzegorz Berendt

Views section

@TrangaBellam do you think that relying on one author to cite an anecdote from a conference is worth including in an article about a living person? Tokarska-Bakir explicitly says that she "cites the phrasing based on her own notes." In general, what does this even mean, how does it qualify as "views," and if so, what kind of views? Even Tokarska-Bakir says: "It is difficult to assess Grzegorz Berendt's views completely, as he has published little about them so far." (The Open Secret. Victims, perpetrators, witnesses..., p. 17) Marcelus (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Everybody reports events based on their own notes - what is the issue? I can neither understand why the content, added by me, cannot be classed as views. WP:RFC ... TrangaBellam (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Issue can be WP:BLPGOSSIP, especially since it reported by only one person. Also WP:UNDUE. Marcelus (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The policy advises us to adjudge:

whether the source is reliable - It is my belief that Joanna Tokarska-Bakir — a full professor and chair of the ethnic and national relations study at the Polish Academy of Sciences's Institute of Slavic Studies — is reliable.

whether the material is being presented as true - I have no reasons to suppose that Tokarska-Bakir is lying across three peer-reviewed publications. Neither do I see any evidence that Berendt has accused Tokarska-Bakir of making stuff up.

relevant to a disinterested article [reader - ?] about the subject - There is a HUGE controversy among historians of Poland about Polish culpability in the Holocaust. Accordingly, this is DUE information about the subject's views on the topic.

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Even better. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Monograph

In March 2017, Grabowski notes that Berendt is yet to publish one. What is the current status? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

[1]. [2]. [3]? All predating 2017...? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam Also [4] and from the year ago [5] Marcelus (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus Thanks; any reviews? We can add them. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

[P]ublish one [on the Holocaust].

I doubt that 2 and 3 concerns the subject. Not certain about 1. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Would USHMM have works in their library that are not relevant to that topic? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ofcourse, it has many such works; even on the ancient history of Jews etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Revert

@TrangaBellam why did you revert my change instead of starting a discussion about possible changes? To answer your question: the attribution is important because it is based solely on Tokarska-Bakir's recollection of this conference. Marcelus (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you see that I had incorporated back your edit, almost in full? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you did not restore it "almost in full", you removed important passages that that do not correspond to your vision of the content, without engaging in discussion and ignoring my comments. This is another of many examples of WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:DISRUPTIVE editings on your part Marcelus (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, go to AE or ArbCom. As of now, I have not restored one phrase from your edit:

during a conference organized by the Institute of National Remembrance in 2013

What is the relevance of the particular year and/or the organizer? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You did not restore the context saying that it was part of the discussion with Gross, you did not restore the argument that Gross made. And the passages that talked about the conference itself (the organizer, the occasion for which it was organized). You modified Berendt's statement by removing "struggle to survive." I'm talking, of course, about the changes that were in place at the time of writing your 18:18 GMT response, not the changes you made before writing your second comment hoping to deceive anyone. Marcelus (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That said, you had tried to attribute the no-moral-culpability-stance exclusively to Bakir, which is improper since Grabowski makes the same observations. Justifications for revert etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the conference conduct is based on Tokarska-Bakir's recollection. Nonetheless, it is not a basis for reverting the entire edit, only for removing the first attribution. Marcelus (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But the no-moral-culpability-stance is not, which your edit portrayed as. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Secondary source

Dreamcatcher, none of the sources that you have added are secondary sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Done, for you. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

BLP Violations

Ascherson

The article text said: "Neal Ascherson described Berendt's appointment to the MWS as part of the incumbent PiS government's attempt to put in "pliable men" in charge of historical organizations."

The source [6] says nothing of the sort. At best this is WP:SYNTH of two parts of the source. The first part which says In April, the minister of culture deftly changed the legal status of the museum, allowing him to sack the director and put in pliable men of his own. A roar of protest followed. and the part later on in the article which says ‘No plans for major alteration,’ Nawrocki’s deputy, Grzegorz Berendt, told me, ‘Only adjustments.’ Even this kind of WP:SYNTH skips the crucial part in the middle which says "But it hasn’t happened – not yet." (i.e. the appointment of "pliable men" whoever they are).

I removed this as a WP:BLP violation. Please do not restore. Volunteer Marek 23:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The source says, In April, the minister of culture deftly changed the legal status of the [Museum of the Second World War (MWS)], allowing him to sack the director and put in pliable men of his own. Indeed, Berendt was appointed in the wake of this.

The "it" in It hasn't happened yet refers to [replacement of] ‘unhealthy cosmopolitan’ stuff with lists of Polish priests shot by communists and like business. That is, an overhaul of the museum in sync with RW interpretations of Polish history. Not, the appointment of pliable men. Note the lines that precede and follow:

Everyone expected that the new team would now castrate the whole project by removing exhibits that showed Poland in a poor light. They would replace ‘unhealthy cosmopolitan’ stuff with lists of Polish priests shot by communists. ‘See the show while it lasts,’ was the advice going round Gdańsk. But it hasn’t happened – not yet. The new director, Karol Nawrocki, said evasively that ‘[..] talk that nothing can be changed is inappropriate.’ [..] ‘No plans for major alteration,’ Nawrocki’s deputy, Grzegorz Berendt, told me, ‘Only adjustments.’

So, no. I had read the source very carefully and was not violating BLP. Please restore the DUE criticism. If you feel that BLP necessitates us to mention that as of October 2017, Berendt has not altered the museum in any fundamental way, which indeed can be sourced from Ascherson, please be my guest. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, Berendt was appointed in the wake of this. Berendt wasn't appointed as director and the source does not refer to him as a "pliable men". This is at best WP:SYNTH (and in fact the controversy, to the extent it existed, had more to do with two museums being joined together).

The "it" refers to basically all of it - the author though is using some hyperbole. The article also says "And yet so far almost nothing has changed". The whole point of those paragraphs is exactly that these fears of "overhaul of the museum in sync with RW interpretations of Polish history" (sic) did NOT happen (though it scare mongers a bit with the "not yet").

There simply is nothing in the source to justify this text. This is a BLP page and the text is going to be in accordance with BLP policy. Volunteer Marek 06:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Whether the source is hyperbolic or scare-mongering or not is irrelevant; I can allege that you are violating BLP by accusing Ascherson of all these things. That said, do you doubt the expertise of Ascherson? BLP is not a trump-card to keep away criticism. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"I can allege that you are violating BLP by accusing Ascherson"... huh. That's an interesting argument. I'm not sure if I've seen it before. Maybe. Regardless, the bottom line is that even this source - whether it is hyperbolic and scare mongering or not - does not support the text you're trying to add. Volunteer Marek 07:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Lol - my allegation makes as much sense as your's, which is nil. Reasonable synthesis is permitted; we do not need Ascherson to write about in ALLCAPS that our subject is a pliable man. He notes that the PiS government bought about a new set of rules to install pliable men at the helm, and Berendt is, indeed, one of the new appointees, being the second-in-command. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, no. Discussing and even criticizing a source is not a BLP violation. It's actually part of our job as Wikipedia editors. Inserting something that a source doesn't actually say into an article about a living person is a BLP violation on the other hand. The problem with your second sentence is that the source also keeps saying "But it hasn’t happened – not yet." and "And yet so far almost nothing has changed". I don't know what a "reasonable synthesis" is. Volunteer Marek 07:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Almost simultaneously, the Auschwitz Council was constituted. There, we also find "our people" [..] [T]here is Dr. Grzegorz Berendt, the IPN employee responsible for the authorities' "capture" of the World War II Museum in Gdańsk.
— https://wyborcza.pl/7,173236,28781144,leaked-emails-show-how-the-polish-government-tried-to-rewrite.html

Hmm. It does not appear that Ascherson was an outlier. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, fyi. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

That's still pretty thin. But. Given that in the current ArbCom case people are posting some really weak-sauce evidence which focuses on very recent edits where they're basically throwing up any edits to the topic that have been made AFTER the case opened as "diffs" I'm not going to make any edits here. Chilling effect and all that. So that's it from me. Volunteer Marek 16:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek I do not *really* plan to submit any evidence against you but I do get you. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I was speaking in general, not about you in particular. Volunteer Marek 16:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

So, with the TBan and the additional source, my edit goes in. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The Ascherson is indeed WP:SYNTH. The Wyborcza piece is fine; I've added the quote. Regards, Andreas JN466 12:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Tokarska-Bakir

Pulp

Here is another very serious BLP vio. The text claims that this source: "Tokarska-Bakir, Joanna (2021). "Pulp: My reply to Ryszard Śmietanka-Kruszelnicki"" supports the text: "Berendt not only repudiated Gross' assertion that the Polish bystanders were passively complicit in the Holocaust by claiming that the Poles' own "struggle to survive" justified such a stance but went as far as to propose that any Pole, when faced with such accusations, shall, in turn, enquire why most of the Jews who had received help, did not offer any financial aid to their rescuers."

Berendt is referred to only once in this source. In a footnote on page 1. The text in the source says "It is headed by a man notorious for blaming the Jews who had been in hiding during the war for failing to take proper financial care of the Polish candidates for the title of Righteous Among the Nations". The "notorious man" in this text is Tadeusz Rydzyk, NOT Berendt.

This is getting serious. Two BLP vios. Two sources very much misrepresented. Volunteer Marek 00:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, how did you arrive at such a conclusion? Please read the source carefully:

The reverberations of the decision to grant 80 million zlotys to Fr. Tadeusz Rydzyk, who is building the “Polish Yad Vashem”, had barely died down when the field of Polish-Jewish studies in Poland was blessed with a new luxurious journal, Polish-Jewish Studies. It [the journal] is headed by a man notorious for blaming the Jews who had been in hiding during the war for failing to take proper financial care of the Polish candidates for the title of Righteous Among the Nations. [Footnote: Statement by Dr. hab. Grzegorz Berendt, head of the [...] during the IPN conference “Being a Witness to the Holocaust” held on the seventieth anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising [..]

Indeed, the journal is headed by Dr. hab. Grzegorz Berendt. Rydzyk has no relevance to the line under discussion or even the journal, which is pretty obvious. Once again, its is you who have misinterpreted sources. Please restore the paragraph. You really believed that such a fundamental gaffe would have escaped past both me and Marcelus?

Some context for t/p watchers: The context of this "blaming" is that many Jews did not maintain any contact with their Polish rescuers in post-war Poland and most of these rescuers lived in abject poverty. Now, the prevailing popular sentiment on the issue is that the Jews were ungrateful to the rescuers. However, as Grabowski et al. show, this non-contact stemmed primarily from the high levels of antisemitism in post-War Poland - the rescuers themselves often asked Jews to not maintain contact lest they be harassed. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I misread that. The source words it very strangely - it somehow tries to associate Rydzyk with this new journal and pretends that they are somehow linked, even though they're not. I guess it worked since it misled me. Volunteer Marek 06:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Politeja

Yup. One more. The Wikipedia text said that this source: Tokarska-Bakir, Joanna (2015). "PROSPERO I KURZ W LUSTRZE PAMIĘCI: PRZENIESIENIOWE POZYCJE SPRAWCY, OFIARY I ŚWIADKA W POLSKIM DYSKURSIE PUBLICZNYM DRUGIEJ DEKADY XXI WIEKU". Politeja (35): 20. supports the notion that "Berendt not only repudiated Gross' assertion that the Polish bystanders were passively complicit in the Holocaust by claiming that the Poles' own "struggle to survive" justified such a stance"

This is not in the source.

There is a paragraph in the source which talks about different "connotations" of the word "witness" as used in Raul Hillberg's work. Berendt is mentioned in one sentence. Gross is mentioned in the following one. There's no "repudiation" of any kind going on here. The only thing it says about Gross is that he defined "bystander is somebody who stands by". Then there's some discussion about the etymology and difference in meaning between the English word "bystander" and the Polish word "swiadek".

But nothing here supports the text that was inserted.

That's three for three as far as BLP vios go. Volunteer Marek 00:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Why did you skip that there was another source for the line? Did you miss " Tokarska-Bakir, Joanna. The open secret: Victims, perpetrators, witnesses and bystanders in Polish public discourse at the beginning of the 21st century. In S. K. Danielsson & F. Jacob (Eds.), Intellectual anti-Semitism (pp. 223–258). Verlag Königshausen & Neumann."?

It is often the case that a line/paragraph is written from two or three sources which, taken together, supports the sentence but not individually. What's the big deal? Fwiw, this particular context was added by Marcelus and slightly reworded by me. I find it amusing that Marcelus tried (I believe he had merits, causing me to restore it) to incorporate the context about Berendt's remarks being in response to Gross and then you arrive to shunt it out. Lol. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Even the particular wording "struggle to survive" was added by Marcelus, duly sourced. Sigh. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The two sources present when I removed the text were "My reply to Ryszard Śmietanka-Kruszelnicki" and "Prospero i Kurz W Lustrze Pamieci: Przeniesieniowe pzycje sprawcy, ofirary i swiadka w Polskim dyskyrsie publicznym drugies dekady XXI wieku".I don't see the "The open secret" source being used for that sentence. It is used elsewhere in the article. Volunteer Marek 07:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

So, you did not consult a source but yet removed it in the same edit? Or did you find "Tokarska-Bakir found Berendt to have created an unsubstantiated false equivalence between the Jews and Poles under the Nazis [...]" as a misrepresentation? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

No I found "she perceived his comment on the financial ungratefulness of Jews as antisemitic." as a misrepresentation. And given the sheer number of BLP vios so far, it seemed prudent to remove the entire paragraph. With BLPs it's always better to be safe than sorry. As far as I'm aware there's no deadline for this text. Volunteer Marek 07:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

There's also a general problem with how all these sources are being used - the subject is mentioned or named only once, in a few of them in an actual footnote. This makes the text look cherry picked and undue. Volunteer Marek 07:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Tokarska-Bakir devotes a good few pages to the subject in "The Open Secret", which you removed. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes but that doesn't support the wording either. There's no "repudiated" in there. It just says that Gross and Berendt had different views.

Also, since this is a BLP I would appreciate it if rather than restoring contentious material you'd wait and try to work out the issue on talk first. Volunteer Marek 07:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Please be bold; if you feel that "disagreed" is better to "repudiated", JUST DO IT. But do not imply that my choice of words was a BLP violation.

And, no, you cannot nuke content without even reading the source ("The Open Secret") but yet removing it or misreading sources ("Pulp") or .... I believe that there can be reasonable disagreement on Ascherson and have not restored it. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not "nuking content" - I am removing what appears to be text which violates WP:BLP and which doesn't correspond to what the sources say. And I *have* read the sources, contrary to your statement - please discuss content not editors. Volunteer Marek 07:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Having read "The Open Secret", you chose to write this section? You can blame me for not citing the source, but if you had indeed read it, all it would have taken you was to copy-paste the particular citation. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because the two sources didn't support the first paragraph *at all* and the Open Secret doesn't support the second paragraph. See below. This is actually worse, as that sentence has even more BLP vios in it. Volunteer Marek 07:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

And another one

"he went on to enquire why most of the Jews who had received help, did not offer any financial aid to their rescuers." - but that's not what he did and the source does not say this either. The source says "He went on arguing that since the witnesses were sometimes asked why they had refused to shelter Jews, the Jews that were in hiding might just as well be asked why they were not interested in the financial situation of those sheltering them. " He's clearly saying here - rightly or wrongly - that BOTH questions are illegitimate. So this text too misrepresents the source. Volunteer Marek 07:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

And, like, what is the misrepresentation? We cannot read motives into Berendts statement about what he perceived as legitimate and to what extent. Tokarska-Bakir is very explicit about what Berendt's stance is - "strikingly dissmilar to Gross", "standing by behaviour [is] fully justifiable", etc. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The misrepresentation is that he did NOT "enquire why most of the Jews who had received help, did not offer any financial aid to their rescuers". This is pretty straight forward. Volunteer Marek 07:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

So, you propose that

Berendt argues [..] the Jews that were in hiding might just as well be asked why they were not interested in the financial situation of those sheltering them.

is fundamentally different to

[Berendt] enquires why most of the Jews who had received help, did not offer any financial aid to their rescuers

? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. It is your claim that Berendt was rhetorical, right? Just like my tactic at the last AE thread, he gave this exaggerated counter-example to draw a parallel and show why Gross' stance did not make sense. In essence, all that he wished to say was that both of these arguments are illegitimate. Do I get you? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, he was being rhetorical. Like you at the last AE thread I guess. Volunteer Marek 07:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Such might be the case if our only source was "The Open Secret". But "Pulp" portrays Berendt's statement as a matter-of-fact assertion:

notorious for blaming the Jews who had been in hiding during the war for failing to take proper financial care of the Polish [..]

Thanks. We, as editors, cannot choose to ignore a reputed scholars' intepretation of someone's speech and re-classify it as mere rhetoric. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

And that one comes from a footnote essentially or at best, an off-hand comment. Like you said, Open Secret is the only one that devotes any space to the issue beyond a footnote or single sentence. And we seem to have two sources here which contradict each other. Except they're by the same author. Volunteer Marek 08:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no contradiction; it is you who is reading a rhetorical motive into Berendt's speech. It is unreasonable to argue that "The Open Secret" cannot be complemented from "Pulp". Also, the line quoted from Pulp is not from a footnote but the third line of her paper; ofcourse, the source will be in the footnote! TrangaBellam (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

No, Open Secret pretty clearly states: "He went on arguing that since the witnesses were sometimes asked why they had refused to shelter Jews, the Jews that were in hiding might just as well be asked why they were not interested in the financial situation of those sheltering them. " What do you think the "just as well" indicates here? Volunteer Marek 08:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

That he meant it as a reciprocal question; whether he is rhetorical or not cannot be perceived at all. "Pulp" is EXPLICIT that he meant it as a matter-of-fact question; do you feel that "The Open Secret" is similarly explicit? Fwiw, my previous framing was "[Berendt] proposed that any Pole, when faced with such accusations, shall, in turn, enquire [..]"

I have no opposition to providing more context as long as there is no editorializing (rhetoric etc.). As you can see, my writeup is indeed accurately sourced from "Pulp". You can be bold and try for a better version... TrangaBellam (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Restoring my writeup. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, even the way it's written, with the "most of the" thrown in there pretty clearly raised WP:SYNTH and WP:OR red flags. Volunteer Marek 07:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

Grzegorz Berendt [identifies] with the position of a terse and sober bystander, who does not want to feel guilty that he outlived war. The problem is that by supporting false symetry between persecuted Poles and persecuted Jews he reopens the bygone martyrdom competition. What is even worse, is that seventy years after the war by absolving Poles from the necessity of moral obligations a civil servant of a democratic Polish state repeats the same gesture of exclusion by means of which the perishing Jews have been stranded in the Holocaust. That is quite a damning indictment; what do you say? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Are you sure you placed this in the correct section? There is nothing in the text you're quoting about "enquir(ing) why most of the Jews who had received help did not offer any financial aid to their rescuers" Volunteer Marek 07:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Ah, I thought it was your claim that I had misrepresented Berendt's position on the debate of culpability. Misintepretation, ig. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think I've said anything about Berendt's position on the debate of culpability. Volunteer Marek 07:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC) I misinterpreted your opening statement. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Ok. Can you remove the stuff about "enquiring why most Jews who had..." etc.? Volunteer Marek 07:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Noting that the discussion is being held above; VM, can I collapse this from my quote? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Sure. And maybe we can pause here and give others, if any, a chance to chime in? Volunteer Marek 08:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Fair. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

And another one

"she perceived his comment on the financial ungratefulness of Jews as antisemitic" <-- where is this in the source? She is definitely critical of Berendt's views but I don't see her saying this anywhere. This is a very serious accusation and this is a BLP so it better be pristinely sourced. Volunteer Marek 07:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

In fact this one is two BLP violations in one. First one is the claim that Berendt said that Jews were "financially ungrateful" - he didn't say anything like that nor does the source say he did. Second one is the "perceived as antisemitic". Volunteer Marek 07:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Going by Pulp, "financial ungratefulness" is a decent word though a native speaker can undoubtedly come up with something better:

[Berendt is] notorious for blaming the Jews who had been in hiding during the war for failing to take proper financial care of the Polish [rescuers].

TrangaBellam (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The "financially ungrateful" bit goes in; the "perceived as antisemitic" bit stays out. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

General problem with Tokarska-Bakir story

The main problem with Joanna Tokarska-Bakir's story is that it is based solely on her recollection of the vivid discussion. It is not Berendt's opinion expressed in a publication or on the record, which can be confirmed and verified. In addition, he did not express the thought in written form, so even if he did say so, he may have considered the thought to be wrong, poorly expressed, etc. This is important because he is the author of an extensive article touching on exactly this issue (Berendt, Grzegorz (2008). "Cena życia ─ ekonomiczne uwarunkowania egzystencji Żydów po "aryjskiej stronie"" [The price of life ─ economic conditions of Jewish existence on the "Aryan side"]. Zagłada Żydów. Studia i Materiały. 4: 110–143.) and he does not express anything close to this thought there.

The second reason is that there is undoubtedly a dispute between two researchers, perhaps even of a personal nature. The very fact that Tokarska-Bakir cites something she heard at the conference in as many as three published texts is evidence of her personal involvement. I don't think Wikpedia should get involved in a dispute between two researchers and repeat the publicistic epithets they bestow on each other.

What's more, one can find questionable statements by figures on the other side of the dispute, which were also commented on in harsh terms. Is Wikipedia supposed to parrot all this? After all, we have rules such as WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:PROPORTION, etc. that are relevant in this case. Marcelus (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

All of these are speculations:

• even if he did say so, he may have considered the thought to be wrong, poorly expressed, etc.
• there is undoubtedly a dispute between two researchers, perhaps even of a personal nature.
• very fact that Tokarska-Bakir cites something she heard at the conference in as many as three published texts is evidence of her personal involvement

We, as editors, ought not speculate on the motivations of any scholar. As and when the above assertions are substantiated by evidence, I will participate in this discussion. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

That the story is known only from Tokarska-Bakir's account is not speculation, but fact. That Berendt did not express it in any verifiable form is also a fact. That Berendt, when writing on this very topic, did not express such views is also a fact.

That guidelines and policies require us to balance the content of the article and not to repeat everything that has been described anywhere, especially if we are talking about living people, is also a fact, not speculation. Marcelus (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

That Berendt did not express it in any verifiable form - What is a verifiable form for you?

That Berendt, when writing on this very topic, did not express such views is also a fact. - Your editorial opinion. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

That's literaly my very first post on this talk page. Tokarska-Bakir says: "It is difficult to assess Grzegorz Berendt's views completely, as he has published little about them so far." (The Open Secret. Victims, perpetrators, witnesses..., p. 17) Marcelus (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Tokarska-Bakir says that since he has published little on the topic, it is difficult to assess his views. Whereas you claim that whatever he has published do not support Tokarska-Bakir's reading. Do you see the difference? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Because she said that Marcelus (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

GW

• https://wyborcza.pl/7,75968,22620819,muzeum-ii-wojny-swiatowej-nie-muzeum-wielkiej-polski-smierc.html

TrangaBellam (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Leszczyński

Another distortion ([TB edit]) of a source by @TrangaBellam, Leszczyński's article is saying: Jego promotorem był prof. Grzegorz Berendt z Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, specjalista od powojennych dziejów polskich Żydów (ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem Gdańska). Berendt też jest pracownikiem gdańskiego IPN, w którym uchodzi – jak usłyszało OKO.press w IPN – za jednego z czołowych "prawdziwych Polaków", wytrwale umniejszających współudział Polaków w Zagładzie Żydów w czasie II Wojny Światowej. in translation: His [Karol Nawrocki's] supervisor was Prof. Grzegorz Berendt of the University of Gdansk, a specialist in the post-war history of Polish Jews (with special emphasis on Gdańsk). Berendt, too, is an employee of the Gdańsk IPN, where he is regarded - as OKO.press heard at the IPN - as one of the leading "real Poles" who persistently belittled Poles' complicity in the Holocaust of Jews during World War II.

So:

1. 'leading "real Pole"' not 'patriotic Pole'

2. Leszczyński doesn't accuse him of anything, he is just repeating, what OKO.Press heard at the IPN

3. The word "uchodzi" ('regarded') is linked to a description of a well-known conference ([7]), so what we really have is circular reporting. Marcelus (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Circular reporting - how? Real is as good as patriotic; "patriotic historians" is what all scholars use in the debates on Polish historiography. Do not nitpick my edits. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really the same, please follow source, not your own narrative Marcelus (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, translation involves some discretion. Unless you are relying upon GTranslate. Patriotic was a far better word-choice, given the terminology used in these debates. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Rather than "real" or "patriotic" I think that either "genuine" or "true" would be more appropriate. The implication here is that he represents the only valid historiographical approach to the study of Polish-Jewish relations according to far-right academics. Ppt91^talk 00:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree about the implication. But according to my understanding, scholars like Michlic, Stola, Grabowski, et al., use the term "patriotic historiography" to describe this school. Nonetheless, "genuine" is better than "true". Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

As to (2): Meh. It is blindingly obvious that the author supports the accusations but whatever pleases you. If anything my previous writeup was more conservative than the current one, which makes it seem that his reputation is pretty widespread within IPN.TrangaBellam (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I changed it to actually follow what Leszczyński is saying Marcelus (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I offer no opposition either-ways. Ty, TrangaBellam (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)